The Great Reset

[LeafByNiggle]

To my knowledge there are plenty of jobs for everyone who really wants one. Go to any employment or staffing agency and ask them.

That’s some faulty logic there. Just because staffing agencies have jobs listed does not mean that anyone can get those jobs.

The issue is the willingness to work and stay with a job more than a day or two. The rise of staffing agencies is due to the loss of the work ethic.

This is the same kind of uncharitable accusations toward the less fortunate that have been circulation as long as there has been racial and class discrimination. It has taken the form of “Blacks are lazy” which circulated in the South after the Civil War, and “Jews are dirty and harbor disease” which circulated in 1930s Germany. Now we see “The jobless have no work ethic.”

Remember, “The Lord hears the cry of the poor.”

Socialism never works. Subsidiarity is the best way. Solving problems at the level closest to the human being. The problem arises when we don’t take care of people at that level.

This is a misunderstanding of what Socialism is and what Subsidiarity means.

A government program that financially benefits someone is need is not Socialism.

Subsidiarity, properly stated, says that when a problem can be solved by a more local unit of government, or the family, then that should be the preference. But when a problem is not being solved at a lower level, subsidiarity does not prevent a higher level of government from performing that function.

 

[Motherwit]

There are have been people helping those are suffering all along. They simply go and help alleviate the actual cause of real people’s suffering.

If you really believed there was no need to agitate for government protection and policy and that our only duty was to go and help pregnant mothers with unwanted babies, I’d be more inclined to believe that was a genuine position. But we know that what is needed to prevent the exploitation and injustice against people is government protection and policy.

Consider a few things: for decades, all I have heard from the left is that capitalists are greedy and without conscience. Now they come up with pretty-sounding words and you suddenly trust them to remake our entire world? Seriously?

For 7 decades we denounced Russias militant atheism and then came a President who in an extraordinary dialogue with Pope John Paul II, reversed suppression of religion and proclaimed it the right of all Soviets to “satisfy their spiritual needs”. Then passed a law guaranteeing freedom of conscience. That is the power of dialogue.

What is the problem in Europe that it needs “new model of economic and cultural society” at all, much less one designed and implemented by a group of people many of whom are not even from a European nation?

And why do you think this is such a great thing, considering that those on the left have for decades held Europe up as some sort of paragon that the US should emulate?

The EU for nearly 30 years has demonstrated the success of a principle that nations can remain unique and distinct while at the same time appreciating the common good of the collective. That has ensured a great degree of peace and prosperity for that whole collective.

Ah, yes, tis a grand thing to change the entire world! No hubris there; no, none at all! So much… cleaner than going to a hot, dusty village over uncomfortable terrain and having to actually interact with those suffering people.

Again, I’d find that ad hominem to be a genuine sentiment if that was applied to the fate of the unborn, but it isn’t.

 

[Motherwit]

Christ said, Go out and teach all nations. That is our task. That Is how we build the Kingdom of God.

Letting the wealthiest among us… giving them carte blanche over our lives… how is that in any way related to going and teaching?

Motherwit:

Say a Rosary and hope for the best? What do you think should be done? Or nothing at all?

Yes, say a rosary. The world would be vastly improved if all that happened was that we got everyone saying rosaries.

After praying the Rosary, then go and help a few people who are suffering. They say that only about one-third of Catholics attend Mass regularly. A lot of them are older women, maybe a lot of that 1/3rd already do something and a bunch are children, so let’s say 10% are in a position to do something. Ten percent of 25% would be 2.5% of the US population.

Now suppose those people went out and started doing something: tutoring poor children stuck in low-achieving schools. Helping elderly people by getting their groceries. Visiting and helping the families of inmates visit those in prison.

That is alleviating suffering. That is what spreads the Gospel, inspiring others to follow Christ and starting to help alleviate suffering as well.

So, yes, saying a Rosary is a great first step. Following it up by action is necessary.

You sound as if you think praying a Rosary and hoping for the best is a stupid thing to do that will not help anyone.

But what are you proposing? Putting your trust in rich capitalists and hoping for the best yourself.

I’d answer all this “as above”. I agree with the Church that a big part of spreading the Good News is about reaching out in dialogue to godless leaders and stirring consciences. It’s not a new way of Christian mission and it has changed the world.

 

[goout]

goout:

To my knowledge there are plenty of jobs for everyone who really wants one. Go to any employment or staffing agency and ask them.

That’s some faulty logic there. Just because staffing agencies have jobs listed does not mean that anyone can get those jobs.

The issue is the willingness to work and stay with a job more than a day or two. The rise of staffing agencies is due to the loss of the work ethic.

This is the same kind of uncharitable accusations toward the less fortunate that have been circulation as long as there has been racial and class discrimination. It has taken the form of “Blacks are lazy” which circulated in the South after the Civil War, and “Jews are dirty and harbor disease” which circulated in 1930s Germany. Now we see “The jobless have no work ethic.”

Remember, “The Lord hears the cry of the poor.”

Socialism never works. Subsidiarity is the best way. Solving problems at the level closest to the human being. The problem arises when we don’t take care of people at that level.

This is a misunderstanding of what Socialism is and what Subsidiarity means.

A government program that financially benefits someone is need is not Socialism.

Subsidiarity, properly stated, says that when a problem can be solved by a more local unit of government, or the family, then that should be the preference. But when a problem is not being solved at a lower level, subsidiarity does not prevent a higher level of government from performing that function.

geez.
I am not accusing the poor as you are assuming.
I am noting the fact…that the work ethic is disappearing among many people, and that loss leads to and perpetuates poverty.
I have a staffing agency right next door to me. There are jobs available for anyone, literally, that wants work. They cannot fill the jobs that are available. And the overriding issue is that an increasing number of people do not have the virtue to maintain a job.

 

[goout]

goout:

Socialism never works. Subsidiarity is the best way. Solving problems at the level closest to the human being. The problem arises when we don’t take care of people at that level.

This is a misunderstanding of what Socialism is and what Subsidiarity means.

A government program that financially benefits someone is need is not Socialism.

Subsidiarity, properly stated, says that when a problem can be solved by a more local unit of government, or the family, then that should be the preference. But when a problem is not being solved at a lower level, subsidiarity does not prevent a higher level of government from performing that function.

???
Where is the misunderstanding?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

geez.
I am not accusing the poor as you are assuming.

This very post of yours repeats the accusation.

I am noting the fact…that the work ethic is disappearing among many people…

It is not a fact. It is an uncharitable assumption.

I have a staffing agency right next door to me. There are jobs available for anyone, literally, that wants work.

As I said before, that is faulty logic. Just because a staffing job exists where you are does not mean that someone in Flint, Michigan, who has an elderly relative to care for and no car can get that job.

 

[o_mlly]

But when a problem is not being solved at a lower level, subsidiarity does not prevent a higher level of government from performing that function.

The principle of subsidiarity is a constraint, not a right, on higher orders of society from meddling where they ought not. The principle is one of prevention.

Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions … (CENTESIMUS ANNUS).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The principle of subsidiarity is a constraint , not a right, on higher orders of society from meddling where they ought not. The principle is one of prevention .

Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions … (CENTESIMUS ANNUS).

The subject was the Coronavirus Relief Act. It does not interfere with the internal life of a community of lower order, but rather it enables that community of lower order to continue living in the face of the pandemic. Subsidiarity does not prevent the CARES act.

 

[goout]

goout:

geez.
I am not accusing the poor as you are assuming.

This very post of yours repeats the accusation.

I am noting the fact…that the work ethic is disappearing among many people…

It is not a fact. It is an uncharitable assumption.

I have a staffing agency right next door to me. There are jobs available for anyone, literally, that wants work.

As I said before, that is faulty logic. Just because a staffing job exists where you are does not mean that someone in Flint, Michigan, who has an elderly relative to care for and no car can get that job.

It’s not an uncharitable assumption that the work ethic is disappearing and that it contributes to the cycle of poverty.
It’s the direct statistical evidence, shown by un-fillable jobs, and HR staffs that can’t deal with hiring people anymore.

You ought to befriend someone who runs a staffing agency and talk to them. Or anyone who does human resources and hires floor employees at entry levels.
My daughter is an HR director for manufacturing plants in 5 states, and this is a nuts and bolts real problem.

 

[goout]

Yes that’s true.

 

[goout]

As long as a real perspective is still needed, my next door neighbor hires for a concrete company. They employ about 300 people. They have standing open positions for entry level labor all the time.

About 10% of the applications for employment are good, the rest are automatic rejections due to drug fails and felonies.
The reason they have constant standing open positions is that the majority of new hires cannot do concrete work on the road for more than a week or two.

To not acknowledge a real problem is to contribute to it and help perpetuate the poverty.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s not an uncharitable assumption that the work ethic is disappearing and that it contributes to the cycle of poverty.

It most certainly is. Would you consider it uncharitable if I said you had no work ethic?

It’s the direct statistical evidence, shown by un-fillable jobs

For the third time, that is faulty logic. Un-fillable jobs in one place does not prove that people in another place can fill those jobs.

 

[HarryStotle]

Subsidiarity, properly stated, says that when a problem can be solved by a more local unit of government, or the family, then that should be the preference. But when a problem is not being solved at a lower level, subsidiarity does not prevent a higher level of government from performing that function.

And if billionaires and globalists can finance dissent and anarchy at local levels such that inept and complicit mayors and governors do not solve or refuse to solve problems at lower levels then subsidiarity does not prevent the highest level of government (i.e., global) from taking the reins at every lower level, especially if the Pope can be induced to support such an intervention.



Subsidiarity assumes good faith performance of governance at every level. That isn’t quite the case in the world today, when wealthy elites and globalist politicos have strong motivations to undermine obstacles to their power at local and national levels.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Fantastic article in the November-December Catholic Answers magazine by Trent Horn on exactly this principle.

 

[godisgood77]

No I don’t think it is some sort of conspiracy. I think it is practical to take this opportunity to address the severe inequities that have cropped up in capitalist economies… the common good has disappeared in the chasm between the rich and the poor… greed has taken over. That is not to say that socialism is the answer, but clearly something is not working

 

[HarryStotle]

goout:

It’s not an uncharitable assumption that the work ethic is disappearing and that it contributes to the cycle of poverty.

It most certainly is. Would you consider it uncharitable if I said you had no work ethic?

Would it necessarily be uncharitable if it were true? Or does the truth even matter?

Was Jesus being uncharitable when he called the scribes and Pharisees whited sepulchres?

Is it uncharitable to criticize someone in all circumstances or is there a charitable and uncharitable manner of criticizing?

Wouldn’t it depend entirely on how the “no work ethic” was brought up and who the parties were? Parent to child? Employer to employee? I don’t agree that it is uncharitable in all cases. It might be just as uncharitable to not say anything whatsoever when it could help the person if it was done the right way.

 

[Annie]

But we know that what is needed to prevent the exploitation and injustice against people is government protection and policy.

First, what you originally brought up was suffering, not exploitation and injustice (although those are a couple among many sources of suffering).

Second, while government does indeed have an important role to play, people should not concentrate on getting the government to do its thing while ignoring the current suffering, and that what I see all too often, people feeling like they have done what they need to do by voting, or by voting and making a phone call, or by voting and going to a couple of protests if the weather is good enough.

If a person needs to chose between helping alleviate suffering in an immediate and personal way and working on getting the government to fix the problem I would say, do the first. Among other things, when that person goes to the government, they will have a basis for the government to listen to them.

And finally, when did I say that was it? I answered a question about alleviating suffering in the context of a discussion about the desire of the wealthiest people on earth wanting to redesign every aspect of our lives, and my desire not to have them do that.

That is the power of dialogue.

And a good thing for those who are in a position to do it beneficially, if it is followed by beneficial action.

Gorbachev met with the pope and then lifted the bans, both legal and in reality, on being religious. He allowed the people more freedom to make their own decisions.

He didn’t meet with a lot of other highly placed “citizens of the world” and draw up plans to leave the people with less freedom.

he EU for nearly 30 years has demonstrated the success of a principle…

After all that praise of Europe, I have to ask again, What is the problem in Europe that it needs “new model of economic and cultural society” at all, much less one designed and implemented by a group of people many of whom are not even from a European nation?

Again, I’d find that ad hominem to be a genuine sentiment if that was applied to the fate of the unborn, but it isn’t.

And I would think you were correct, if pro-lifers did nothing aside from political action.

If slavery were still legal, would you be ok with that? Leave it up to the owners of the slaves to decide?

 

[HarryStotle]

No I don’t think it is some sort of conspiracy. I think it is practical to take this opportunity to address the severe inequities that have cropped up in capitalist economies… the common good has disappeared in the chasm between the rich and the poor… greed has taken over. That is not to say that socialism is the answer, but clearly something is not working

What is not working exactly? And shouldn’t that be specified and problem solving directed there? Why take down the whole system because of some unspecified dissatisfaction when the untried solutions could be catastrophic?

The Great Leap Forward of Mao and the Ukrainian Famine came about because of desire for rapid change that ended in misery for millions.

It isn’t very clear to me that those calling for a “Great Reset” have the well-being of everyone, especially the least well off, in mind. Seems to me to be more of a consolidation of wealth by placing the wealthy elites in positions of great control.

It is a conspiracy to consolidate power by removing it from the hands of the people into a more centralist control. Trust us, we’ll take care of you. The same people advocating for the killing of millions of unborn will find ready arguments for killing off many of the born for the sake of the “common good.” No thank you.

 

[Annie]

I’d answer all this “as above”.

I don’t understand what you said here.

I agree with the Church that a big part of spreading the Good News is about reaching out in dialogue to godless leaders

Leaders? A “big part” of evangelization is reaching out to leaders?

Not really what Christ meant when He said to go out and teach all nations…

.

.

.

Maybe we are in different alternate realities…

 

[Maximian]

What I find extraordinary is that most people go on about democracy as if it were a semi divine institution; but the moment there’s a plan to use international organisations in which none of us has a vote, to radically reform our financial and civil rights, suddenly it’s not a problem. Who cares about election results if the big decisions are being taken by the UN and the WEF?